Shadow Minister,

As everyone should know the only ones that will win out of the civil suits against Pell are the lawyers and they will milk it for every dollar they can get out of it.

I would say to the plaintiffs: Let it go and at least take personal satisfaction in the fact that he was convicted, sentenced, and served time in prison and now stands in the community as an ex-con. Let that be the justice and compensation you seek. Plus if he is guilty then he will never make it to Heaven because he knows that God would never offer salvation to a paedophile.

I do not think Pell will seek compensation from the Victorian state. Firstly, the state had the power to take the actions it did and secondly as I pointed out several times to your mate mhaze there is that 'Pell-Vatican-the State' relationship that got his sentence shortened so I think he should bless his lucky stars and let sleeping dogs lie.

SR,

"Can I remind people that the High Court with which you lot are so enamoured right now allowed Lindy Chamberlain's guilty conviction to stand."

As usual SR misunderstands/misinterprets the point.

The issue was that Foxy was using the fact of Pell being able to appeal all the way to the HC as evidence that Pell didn't suffer an injustice.

In my view, Foxy, as usual, reached the conclusion and then looked for the evidence - the conclusion being that she didn't want to admit that Pell had suffered injustice, the evidence being the HC appeal.

So I pointed out that Chamberlain had also been allowed to appeal to the HC and therefore, by Foxy's stilted formula hadn't suffered an injustice. Clearly an absurdity that showed the absurdity of Foxy's original take on Pell.

Foxy's dodging and weaving to avoid addressing that issue revealed her cant and hypocrisy. In the end, hatred of Pell and all he stood for led Foxy to her assertions that injustice didn't accompany his trials and tribulations.

It is of course clear that Foxy will continue to pretend to not understand her hypocrisy on this, so I won't vex her any longer on it.

Mr 0,

The lawyers will be the big winners, and the loser will have to pay them, now that Pell's conviction has been overturned, it will be difficult to prove.

With the conviction overturned, he is in the eyes of the law innocent and not an ex con. According to the HC he was wrongfully convicted and as such can sue the Victorian government for the wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Given his status he would be entitled to $ms if not 10s of $ms. Essentially for abuse of power by the Victorian state.

Given the Church's access to top notch lawyers, the fatuous Andrews should be crapping himself, but in reality probably doesn't give a fig for the taxpayers.

Dear Shadow Minister,

OJ Simpson never sued the state for wrongful arrest. Should he have?

mhaze,

The difference between the Pell cace and the Chamberlain case is that Lindy Chamberlain was a scapegoat.

SR,

An interesting question. He might well have been able to, however, US law is very different. However,

1- He was not convicted, as Pell was,
2- he was imprisoned, but given that he tried to flee, it was entirely his fault. Pell however was not given bail whilst appealing.
3- it was clear that a crime was committed, whereas with Pell it was not.
4- Finally, given his record of violence and spousal abuse, if he won a wrongful arrest case it probably wouldn't have covered his lawyers fees.

Mr 0,

How was lindy a scapegoat, and how was Pell not?